Fourth Circuit strikes down

Virginia ban on same-sex

marriage

In a 2-1 decision in Bostic v. Schaefer, a panel of the Fourth Circuit has invalidated Virginia’s ban on same-sex marriage. The majority opinion was written by Judge Henry Floyd (an Obama nominee, but previously a George W. Bush choice for the district court) and joined by Judge Roger Gregory (Clinton nominee). It’s the second post-Windsor appellate court, after the Tenth Circuit, to strike down an exclusion of gay couples from marriage. Judge Paul Niemeyer (George H.W. Bush) dissented, the second appellate court judge to do so since Windsor. The case was argued by Ted Olson, who recently co-authored a book with David Boies about their challenge to Proposition 8.

The Fourth Circuit majority held that the ban violated gay couples’ fundamental right to marry. Specifically, the majority placed heavy reliance on both Windsor and Lawrence v. Texas as establishing the equal validity of gay couples’ intimate and relational choices:

Lawrenceand Windsorindicate that the choices that individuals make in the context of same-sex relationships enjoy the same constitutional protection as the choices accompanying opposite-sex relationships. We therefore have no reason to suspect that the Supreme Court would accord the choice to marry someone of the same sex any less respect than the choice to marry an opposite-sex individual who is of different race, owes child support, or is imprisoned. Accordingly, we decline the Proponents’ invitation to characterize the right at issue in this case as the right to same-sex marriage rather than simply the right to marry.

In what has become fairly common, the panel closed its decision with broad thoughts on the underlying issue of same-sex marriage. But this time the court explicitly used the word “segregation” to describe the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage:

We recognize that same-sex marriage makes some people deeply uncomfortable. However, inertia and apprehension are not legitimate bases for denying same-sex couples due process and equal protection of the laws. Civil marriage is one of the cornerstones of our way of life. It allows individuals to celebrate and publicly declare their intentions to form lifelong partnerships, which provide unparalleled intimacy, companionship, emotional support, and security. The choice of whether and whom to marry is an intensely personal decision that alters the course of an individual’s life. Denying same-sex couples this choice prohibits them from participating fully in our society, which is precisely the type of segregation that the Fourteenth Amendment cannot countenance.

The idea that laws limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples are a form of segregation is historically loaded, especially for a court sitting in the heart of the old Confederacy. Analogies to the black civil rights movement, and in this context specifically to anti-miscegenation laws and second-class status, have become a staple of gay-rights political and legal arguments. Rarely have they gained quite this explicit an endorsement from a prominent court.

The dissenting opinion is a foretaste of the response to the fundamental-rights argument that we will likely hear in the Supreme Court from (at least) four Justices. It proclaims neutrality on the policy question but leans on judicial restraint in the definition of fundamental rights:

This analysis is fundamentally flawed because it fails to take into account that the “marriage” that has long been recognized by the Supreme Court as a fundamental right is distinct from the newly proposed relationship of a “same-sex marriage.” And this failure is even more pronounced by the majority’s acknowledgment that same-sex marriage is a new notion that has not been recognized “for most of our country’s history.” [citation omitted] Moreover, the majority fails to explain how this new notion became incorporated into the traditional definition of marriage except by linguistic manipulation. Thus, the majority never asks the question necessary to finding a fundamental right — whether same-sex marriage is a right that is “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty, such that neither liberty nor justice would exist if [it was] sacrificed.” [citations omitted]

We don’t know yet whether Virginia will seek review by the entire appeals court before seeking review in the Supreme Court, which would slow down the process. The 10th Circuit case seems to be on a fast track, with state officials eschewing en banc review. It’s likely that more circuit courts will speak to this issue in the coming months, including possible opinions from the 5th and 6th Circuits.

UPDATE: North Carolina’s attorney general, Democrat Roy Cooper, has announced his office will no longer defend the state’s prohibition on gay marriage: “Since the US Supreme Court ruled in the Windsor case, all the federal courts have rejected these arguments each and every time. So it’s time for the State of North Carolina to stop making them.” (HT: Chris Geidner)

Dale Carpenter is the Distinguished University Teaching Professor and Earl R. Larson Professor of Civil Rights & Civil Liberties Law at the University of Minnesota Law School. He teaches and writes in the areas of constitutional law; the freedoms of speech, association, and religion; and sexual orientation and the law.

Because we conclude that the fundamental right to marry encompasses the right to same-sex marriage, Glucksberg’s analysis is inapplicable here.

If the definition of marriage is the legal union between a man and a woman, which it has traditionally and historically been in the US, and remains so under Virginia law, then what the court concludes is self-contradictory nonsense.

The court also apparently thinks that “changing societal norms” are defined by what it’s own members think rather than what the rest of society thinks.

Over the decades, the Supreme Court has demonstrated that the right to marry is an expansive liberty interest that may stretch to accommodate changing societal norms.

Society doesn’t need two leftist judges to tell it when it’s norms have changed. It is perfectly capable of changing the law itself, via the democratic process. Again, that personal politics is driving such rulings as that SSM is a “fundamental right” that is “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” is, it seems to me, undeniable.

My own POV, that this is not an issue ripe for courts to take the bleeding edge, has me looking for how the inferior federal courts are reasoning.

Clearly, Scalia’s prediction in his dissent to Lawrence has come to fruition.

The dissent has the better of this one, I think. The Circuits are running out ahead of the Supreme Court, and while I would support any legislative move to authorize SSM, I remain amazed by the level of activism here – and it is not limited to D appointees, btw.

Over-turning Marriage Equality (since Same-Sex Marriage is semantically equivalent to inter-racial marriage, a framing device creating a distinction which does not exist) is going to require some real legalistic windmills from the five right-wing Catholic Justices.

However, the Infinitely Elastic Commerce Clause will force bakers to make gay wedding cakes until President Paul uses his executive authority to forgo enforcement of Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

You make Scott’s point on the progressive corruption of language quite well.

“is going to require some real legalistic windmills from the five right-wing Catholic Justices.”

Not really. They just go with the actual ruling from Windsor that each state can define marriage individually vis-a-vis same sex vs traditional. All the lower court rulings are citing the dissent as precedent.

There’s a lot riding on Kennedy being willing to overturn his own decision.

“However, the Infinitely Elastic Commerce Clause will force bakers to make gay wedding cakes until President Paul uses his executive authority to forgo enforcement of Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.”

do you really believe that a cake rises to the level of a public accommodation?

do you really believe that a cake rises to the level of a public accommodation?

This is the slippery slope that Rand Paul uses to defend private discrimination and was the basis of much de facto segregation. If you offer a good or service to the public you have to have valid reasons to exclude a willing paying customer.

Obviously they are reasoning backwards, ie they have established the conclusion they want, and are trying to come up with the most plausible rationalization to justify it. They are entirely politicized courts.

The real question is do you have a right to a decent cake or just whatever crap is whipped up? Presumably if they don’t deliver the cake on time or it’s substandard, the recourse is a refund of what they would have paid for it, which puts you back to square one.

Ditto the photographer when all the photos don’t turn out.

Trying to coerce someone into providing you a service for an important occasion just strikes me as stupid.

The basis of segregation in the South was de jure. It was against the law to serve whites & blacks in the same accommodation. It went from that to forced integration by law. There wasn’t a time when the law was neutral.

There’s plenty of photographers or cake makers who will love the business and do a great job. There’s no reason to track down the one or two who don’t and then sue them to force them to participate based on principle, and then also serve up a lecture on how it’s all about tolerance.

The fact is that there was much principled opposition to civil rights laws that outlawed private racial discrimination, precisely because, it was argued, they represented a slippery slope into a world in which all kinds of private behavior can be outlawed as discriminatory, and freedom to make and act on personal judgments would be destroyed. But no, we were assured, racial discrimination was a special case. The dark history of slavery and Jim Crow laws had created a situation in which it wasn’t enough to simply bar government discrimination. And to outlaw private racial discrimination wasn’t stepping on the slippery slope, it was merely an exception to the still cherished general principle of freedom of action, an exception required by the particular history that race has played in America.

Now that those assurances have been tossed out the window and it is clear that we are indeed sailing down that very same slippery slope as various special interest group claims protection from private discrimination, here comes the left arguing in its uniquely disingenuous manner that any attempt to actually put the breaks on continuing to slide down that slope is itself jumping on a slippery slope towards a return to segregated lunch counters.

There is, of course, much else wrong with yello’s (and the court’s) attempt to invoke the specter of racial discrimination. For example, to refuse to provide a service for a certain kind of event is absolutely not the equivalent to refusing to provide a service for a particular kind of person. But for the left to a invoke a “slippery slope” towards renewed racial segregation as a defense of it’s own gleeful ride down the slippery slope it denied existed is particularly galling.

So the answer for bigoted suppliers of services is to be passively-aggressively unprofessional?

Well, the proper answer is obviously to be honest and simply inform prospective clients of the “bigotry” and advise them to go elsewhere for the service. But since you want to inexplicably deny these suppliers the ability to do that, this is, again obviously, the next best approach.

There’s plenty of photographers or cake makers who will love the business and do a great job.

Not universally true. Your privilege from living in a diverse urban environment is showing. I do like the Mississippi “If You’re Buying, We’re Selling” campaign which is the free market program that has religiously run providers whining that they are being oppressed and discriminated against.

What makes a “gay” wedding a different “certain kind” of event other than the the genders of the participants?

Well, obviously if we exclude from consideration the very characteristics that make any two different things, er, different, they will appear to be the same.

But, in any event, if a homosexual went to a baker and asked for a birthday cake, and the baker said “No, we don’t serve gays here,” that would be comparable discrimination to racial discrimination in which service is denied to a person because of a characteristic of the person. But if the baker says to the gay “Sure I will bake you a birthday cake, but I won’t do a wedding cake because we don’t service gay weddings,”. It is discrimination of an entirely different sort, much like a Jewish baker who doesn’t make cakes for Catholic weddings.

BTW, as an aside, when speaking of a gay wedding, the term would be “gender”, not “genders”, of the participants.

This is clearly where my Libertarian streak shows through; I have said all along that I’d prefer that a business state right up front that they don’t serve gays (kind of the mirrior image of Mississippi’s campaign) and I don’t particularly care if they do serve them or not. As long as I know that, so that I can avoid patronizing them. I think they’d put themselves out of business before long with that kind of advertising campaign.

well, they are. Great Society tried to push religion to the side. the next step is to finish it off completely.

Personally, I don’t really think the wedding catering and photography refusal of service rises to the level of racial discrimination. I do think it’s a poorly thought out business strategy and sort of Bachmann worthy of ridicule.

When I think of wedding cakes I think of “chocolate, vanilla or carrot”, “custard or lemon filling”, “butter cream or cream cheese frosting” and “what color of floral design do you want on it”? That seems like a pretty low bar to raise a stink about gay marriage to me.

And photographers are essentially recorders of events…………………….why should they care who the happy couple is?

If they are that particular about their customers I say give them a pass, but make sure everyone you know knows the kind of business they’re running and understands the basis for their refusal. Who needs them?

Edited to add that I think our country has become suit happy and it’s a pet peeve of mine.

It’s not the bakers who are raising a stink, and the decision not to cater SSM weddings has nothing to do with the design or ingredients of a cake.

True, but it’s the baker’s who refused the job based on the sexual preference of their potential clients and used a cake as their line in the sand. That seems slightly funny to me…………………sorry.

Why should anyone else care why they care?

I care because I believe it’s prejudicial, which bothers me, but I don’t think it’s lawsuit worthy, as I indicated already. I think if businesses act based upon some morality that doesn’t make a lot of sense to me then I have the right to laugh or ridicule them and not put money in their pockets. That was my point.

I think if businesses act based upon some morality that doesn’t make a lot of sense to me then I have the right to laugh or ridicule them and not put money in their pockets.

You certainly do. But what ever happened to that famed sense of tolerance that liberals were supposed to have? I mean, to quite a lot of people, a morality that embraces homosexuality doesn’t make a lot of sense. I wonder what your reaction would be should they decide to laugh at and ridicule anyone with such a morality.

Hah, I don’t generally mix business with morality so they wouldn’t know my views on anything really. I think that’s a mistake a lot of businesses make. Other than being honest and forthright with our customers, and having business integrity, no one knows a thing about our religious, political, or other such opinions.

Personally though, I reserve the right to disagree, ridicule and otherwise reject business practices that wear their morality on their sleeve if it’s something I find appalling as a consumer.

I don’t generally mix business with morality so they wouldn’t know my views on anything really.

I wasn’t talking about you specifically.

Any way, I think the point is clear. Liberals are tolerant of other people’s views, as long as those views comport with their own. Otherwise, not so tolerant. Which sort of makes a mockery of the notion of tolerance.

I think that’s a mistake a lot of businesses make.

So it’s a mistake for business owners to mix their personal morality with their business? I don’t think it would take much effort to come up with examples showing that you don’t really believe that.

Suppose, as a practicing attorney, I find a potential client so revolting that despite his ability and willingness to pay, I refuse to represent him. Suppose he asks me if another member of my firm will represent him, and I tell him he is free to ask, but meanwhile, I poison that well. And suppose each lawyer he interviews turns him down.

I know that this has happened, although, in my experience, somewhere down the line some lawyer will take on the guy for the fee he represents, or because after experiencing multiple lawyer rejections, the potential client has learned to hide his vileness/insanity/apparent unwillingness to act like a human being.

I understand the point, power and use of social stigma. I am just pointing out the hypocrisy of the left, which is constantly demonizing the “intolerance” of its political opponents, but is quite, and I would argue significantly more, intolerant itself. Again, the left seems to think “tolerance” means nothing more than accepting things that the left itself has no objection to.

Scott, the original point was regarding bakers and photographers who refuse to serve homosexual couples. I believe that could certainly be considered intolerant on their part. I think I have been tolerant to the point that I don’t agree with legal action or government action against them, but as a personal matter to me, I would not seek out their services if one of my daughter’s were getting married. Someone who cannot bake a cake for a gay wedding, when their business is baking cakes, looks ridiculous to me. I also think suing them over it is ridiculous. So I suppose I’m intolerant to both sides………………………….oh well.

Go ahead and try. If you’re thinking of a business such as planned parenthood it won’t fly because their business is providing, among numerous other services, abortions, which is obviously a moral issue to the entire nation. That’s their business but it’s completely different from baking wedding cakes……………………..imho.

Scott, the original point was regarding bakers and photographers who refuse to serve homosexual couples.

No, the point was regarding bakers and photographers who refuse to cater to homosexual weddings. There is a difference, and a significant one.

I believe that could certainly be considered intolerant on their part.

Not at all. Tolerating something does not mean one must facilitate it. This is actually a big problem with the left’s disingenuous notion of “tolerance”. They don’t actually want simple tolerance of things, although they pretend that is what they are railing about. They demand not just that SSM be tolerated, but that it be embraced as the cultural equivalent to normal marriage.

The baker and photographer who are being demonized were not out publicly protesting SSM. They were not calling for laws against it, or calling for the wider community to ridicule and stigmatize gays or those that embrace SSM. All they did was quietly refuse to cater to something to which they are personally opposed. They were “tolerant” of SSM even as they refused to personally facilitate it.

The left in general, on the other hand, and you to a slightly lesser degree, are totally intolerant of those personal views with which you disagree. Some, like yello, actually think the law should prohibit them from acting (or, more accurately, refraining from action) based on those views. You, while not going that far, obviously think that ridiculing and socially stigmatizing them for doing so is perfectly acceptable and perhaps even noble. Simply because they don’t embrace your view of SSM as perfectly a benign, and maybe even positive, change in the culture. I think it is clear that you are far more intolerant of the views of the baker and the photographer than they are of the view that Embracing SSM is a good thing.

Go ahead and try.

OK. Do you really think it is a mistake for a business to, say, donate goods and or services to a local charity fund raiser out of a moral sense of obligation to that local community and charity? I’m betting not.

Here’s another one. I don’t know exactly what your business is, but I imagine you have to deal with outside vendors or service providers fairly regularly. Imagine there was a particular vendor who did a great job providing you with service, and had the best price, but you discovered that the owner was a virulent and outspoken opponent of abortion, and donated lots of money to the pro-life cause. Might you be tempted to make a business decision and take your business elsewhere? I’m betting so.

I suspect that you think it is a “mistake” to mix business and morality pretty much only when you disagree with the moral notions being mixed with business.

Muse away……………………………why wouldn’t lawyers have the right to refuse representation? Legally, everyone is entitled to a defense but are lawyers required to represent just because they’re asked………………………I hope not. As I said, I have no issue with the baker’s refusal to bake the damn cake, I just think their reasoning is somewhat ridiculous, it’s just a cake. I don’t see how baking the cake shows a moral approval of SSM. It’s just business. But if they see it differently that’s their choice.

I suppose if lawyers turned away every person they thought was either vile or guilty, they’re probably in the wrong business and aren’t making much money.

Look, we have thousands of customers all across the nation and many of them do share their political and religious views with us. We don’t refuse to sell to them because we happen to disagree. They have no idea, we’re listeners not talkers, of what our views are. It’s really pretty simple.

Scott, I think your point re “intolerance” is rather amusing in itself considering the amount of “intolerance” at this very website toward the left. Really? I believe I’ve proven my tolerance toward the right in many more numerous ways than any of you have toward the left. Just an observation I think you should consider.

I believe I’ve proven my tolerance toward the right in many more numerous ways than any of you have toward the left.

I think the exact opposite is true. You pretty much routinely want to impose liberal ideology at the federal level, thus preventing conservative or libertarian ideology from ever being implemented at more local levels. By forcing issues to be resolved at the federal level, you make the co-existence of liberal and non-liberal policies impossible. And by (quite naturally and understandably) wanting liberal ideology to win the day at the federal level, you obviously want non-liberal policies to be purged from the nation at large, even in places where it has no effect on you whatsoever. Total and complete intolerance.

I, on the their hand, routinely and quite passionately advocate for real federalism, where both liberal and non-liberal policies can co-exist quite easily. If California wants to allow abortion, that would be perfectly tolerable under my vision of the nation. If Texas doesn’t want to recognize SSM while Massachusetts does, that’s all cool.

Again, tolerance does not mean facilitation. I don’t have to endorse or argue for liberal policies in order to tolerate them. In my vision of the nation (and, not coincidentally, that of the founders), if liberals want to organize themselves with high taxes and lots of government control, they can do so at the state level, while at the same time non-liberals can organize themselves with low taxes and lots of freedom of action. Under your vision, this just isn’t true. You cannot accept non-liberal policies co-existing alongside liberal policies. That makes you, not me, the intolerant one.

I’m not going to personally call out individuals or their comments. I tried that once and it didn’t go over very well. Sometimes honesty isn’t the best policy. I’ll just say that the derision is palpable here some days. It’s not in the least bit a hospitable place to people like me. No big deal really, I just come and go as the mood strikes me now and depending on who is around.

I don’t think claiming the left has an intolerance problem without admitting the right has one as well is really all that valuable of an exercise.

All they did was quietly refuse to cater to something to which they are personally opposed. They were “tolerant” of SSM even as they refused to personally facilitate it.

“tolerance: the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with.”

I think we’ll just have to disagree on the tolerance/intolerance of the bakers or photographers. How does baking a cake facilitate the behavior? It’s not as if they’re not going to get married now because that one particular baker refuses to bake them a cake. As I said, I think their personal lack of tolerance has leaked over into their business dealings and that’s what I find ridiculous. That’s just my personal opinion as a consumer of baked goods and a business owner.

but you discovered that the owner was a virulent and outspoken opponent of abortion, and donated lots of money to the pro-life cause. Might you be tempted to make a business decision and take your business elsewhere? I’m betting so.

You couldn’t be more wrong. We’ve heard all sorts of outrageous opinions and have knowledge of lots of behavior we would personally disagree with, but have never refused to sell to or buy from anyone for any reason other than cost of goods were too high or non-payment of bills. If someone tries to undermine our business in some way, we’re through but otherwise, we wouldn’t even consider behaving in such a manner.

As a consumer though, I do refuse to purchase goods and services from very outspoken business entities that show a lack of tolerance for other views. Why is it so difficult for you to accept that our business personna is different than our personal one?

As an aside we donate lots of product to schools, churches, YMCA’s and charity sponsored sporting events. I don’t even understand the point you’re making with this one.

They aren’t opposed to baking a cake. They are opposed to catering an event to which they are morally opposed. You are, I think, trying to trivialize what it is they object to by being disingenuous about it. And, if the baker is not facilitating anything at all, then why all the fuss about them not doing it?

You couldn’t be more wrong.

Fair enough. There’s a temptation here to play the liberal ” greed” card of suggesting that you of only care about money, but it’s not something I put much stock in, so I will refrain.

I don’t even understand the point you’re making with this one.

Obviously businesses, particularly small ones with single or few owners, make business decisions based on a sense of morality all the time. Even yours, as you have just acknowledged. So to say you think it is wrong or a mistake to mix morality with business is not really true.

do you really not see the difference between refusing to cater a gay wedding and refusing to serve gays?

A distinction without a difference. Particularly if your business is making cakes for or taking pictures of “straight” weddings. How do you serve a gay client if you aren’t offering the same product to them you offer to your other clients. A cake is a cake. What makes it “gay” is what you inscribe on it and who you feed it to.

YJ, would you be inclined to support a City Ordinance mandating that caterers cannot refuse to cater SS weddings?

Would you be inclined to support an ordinance that prohibited discrimination against homosexuals in housing, employment and public accommodations? Would you support it if it only applied to buildings containing more than four rental units, and employers and public accommodations with more than 15 employees?

I have listed common exceptions to civil rights ordinances. No city forces you to rent a room in your home to anyone, for instance.

Does it make a difference to you if the baker is small and has fewer than 15 employees?

Weddings are all about straight women, I agree. I guess I was the honorary lesbian at mine.

How do you serve a gay client if you aren’t offering the same product to them you offer to your other clients.

Again, more question begging. They are offering the same product. As far as I am aware, there is no indication that the baker in question would refuse to cater a wedding between a gay person and someone of the opposite sex. What they won’t do is cater a SSM wedding for anyone, whether homo- or hetero-sexual.

I know that assuming the definition of marriage already includes the notion of SSM is part of the rhetorical strategy of the left’s effort to impose SSM through the courts, and you routinely do the same thing here. But I will call you out whenever you do. Your entire argument is an example of petitio principii.

I agree on with lmsinca on the distinction between the use of social stigma vs state coercion is key.

The businesses in question are within their rights based on their morality to not serve gays and lmsinca is within her rights based on her morality not to patronize them. Everyone’s “economic vote” counts the same.

The distinction of the state is that it’s the entity that can use force to get what it wants.

I agree on with lmsinca on the distinction between the use of social stigma vs state coercion is key.

I also agree there is a key distinction between social stigma and state coercion, but I don’t think that was an issue. Where I see no distinction is between the intolerance of those who object to, and therefore will not cater, a same-sex wedding and lms’ intolerance of such objections. Or, more accurately, the distinction is see is that lms is actually more intolerant in wanting to socially stigmatize those she disagrees with, while those she disagrees with aren’t actively trying to stigmatize SSM, they simply don’t want to participate in them.

Sorry, but I think that’s pretty lame. Those are political differences not issues of tolerance/intolerance. There are issues that I think would be better handled at the state level and I’m also willing to listen to and perhaps change my opinion on numerous issues, one being jnc’s ideas re a flat tax. I think I have an open mind but I suppose you disagree.

Speaking just from a personal place, I was the one who was always defending people like John/banned, NoVA , jnc and even you at the PL (and here btw). Who do you think got this assortment of libertarians and conservatives here at ATiM in the first place?

I actually don’t generally make fun of or ridicule personal opinions unless they’re those of public figures but I admit to having a lack of respect for business owners who are incapable of separating their personal lives from their business ones and I will let that opinion be known in what is probably a dis-respectful way. Probably because I lack any sort of respect for them. It seems ridiculous to me that a wedding cake baker would refuse to bake a cake for a wedding. I suppose that makes me the despicable one………………..LOL

All I know is the color of the money. So long as it’s green, I’d bake ’em them damn cake. Unless it was perverted or something.

But don’t lots of companies reserve the right to serve customers based on their whims, pretty much? Not sure why they can’t in this case. I know why they can’t do it based on race. However, I should be able to refuse to cater any wedding based on whatever. Or any kind of event. I would think.

Unless it was perverted or something.
Stripper jumping out of cake must be female and well proportioned? No, that’s not it, Mark…
===
Scott: JNC, LMS, and I all make the government force distinction in the baker case. LMS won’t shop at the bakery, but she thinks gummint coercion of bakeries is ridiculous.

JNC, LMS, and I all make the government force distinction in the baker case.

I know, and so do I. The issue lms and I have been discussing is not whether there is a distinction to be drawn between government force and private action, an issue about which we agree.

LMS won’t shop at the bakery, but she thinks gummint coercion of bakeries is ridiculous.

She also seems to think the baker should be socially stigmatized for his views. And if your analogy to the “vile” legal client is any indication, so do you. I don’t, and I view the desire to do so to be exactly the type of intolerance that the left routinely demonizes the right for.

A service business generally gets to decide on its clientele . . . at least until someone gets their dander up, and they often do, for lots of reasons. Don’t want to set up in the part of town, only want a certain level of client, want to avoid small jobs, yada yada. I think mandated catering may be overstepping the bounds of what the government ought to be doing to provide equal access.

“while those she disagrees with aren’t actively trying to stigmatize SSM, they simply don’t want to participate in them.”

I don’t buy this. I think they are equivalent.

“I refuse to serve you” is all about creating a stigma. They can shun gay people and by the same token lmsinca can shun them. However, both points of view can be tolerated quite easily by the government. No one has to be sued or go to jail.

I also don’t have a problem with progressives not wanting to eat at Chik-Fil-A out of protest. I do have a problem with them trying to use zoning laws to prevent a Chik-Fil-A from being able to operate.

I’m fine with letting social issues sort themselve out in the marketplace of ideas without having the government get involved.

I also don’t have a problem with progressives not wanting to eat at Chik-Fil-A out of protest.

I eat at Chick-Fil-A all the time. In the chicken sandwich market they have the best product at a competitive price. If they refused to serve gay customers I may have to rethink it. I’ve never been in a Hobby Lobby and am unlikely to do so. I quit using an HVAC repair company when the tech mentioned that the company had quit providing health care (this was pre-ACA, so there was no exchange recourse).

Somehow I missed this yesterday. (The perils of posting while at the beach.)

I don’t buy this. I think they are equivalent.

“I refuse to serve you” is all about creating a stigma.

So it is your belief that any personal action, or refusal to act, based on a negative judgment of someone else is necessarily an attempt to creat a social stigma against that someone else? That doesn’t make sense at all to me.

How can one expect a social stigma to be created by a private act of personal conscience? The baker didn’t announce to the public at large his objection to catering gay weddings and as far as I know the baker has not taken steps to convince other bakers to also refuse to cater gay weddings. No one outside the baker and the couple involved would even know about it if not for the publicity craved by the couple themselves.

A private (non-)act of personal conscience cannot sensibly be construed to be an effort to create a social stigma. It is entirely different from a desire and attempt to actively convince others to shun someone for their actions or beliefs.

Many years ago I had a little dance shop where I made costumes and leotards and sold the Capezio brand shoes, tights and leotards etc. I had it for about 5 years and ran it completely by myself. Both our daughters were dancers before they became swimmers in high school.

Anyway, one day this very unassuming man came into the shop and wanted to try on leotards and skirts. I had no clue what to do so figured I had to let him. I don’t think he was a cross dresser, more of a fetishist. I didn’t really have dressing rooms for guys so thought I could maybe use that as an excuse but wasn’t really sure how to confront him. I called a cop friend and he said all I had to do was put a sign up that said I reserved the right to refuse service to anyone and label the changing rooms “girls only”.

When he came back I told him he was more than welcome to purchase something but he couldn’t try them on in the store as I didn’t have the accommodations for that. It was obvious he didn’t want to buy…………………just try on…………….yikes.

I felt sort of bad about it but knew the little girls and their mom’s who came into my shop wouldn’t be too happy finding him in one of the dressing rooms.

Substitute “inter-racial” for “same-sex” and you have the crux of the matter.

Yes, indeed.

Let’s suppose that an Asian baker is willing to provide a cake for a wedding between two whites, and is also willing to provide a cake for a wedding between two blacks, but is not willing to provide a cake for a wedding between a white and a black. Is it right to say the baker is refusing to serve whites? No, for he is perfectly willing to provide a cake for whites. Is it right to say he is refusing to serve blacks? No, because he is also willing to provide a cake for blacks. What he is refusing to do is provide a cake for inter-racial weddings.

Hence, when a baker refuses to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding, it is not correct to say he is refusing to serve gays. He is refusing to serve/facilitate/participate in a same-sex wedding.

No, for he is perfectly willing to provide a cake for whites. Is it right to say he is refusing to serve blacks? No, because he is also willing to provide a cake for blacks. What he is refusing to do is provide a cake for inter-racial weddings.

Which you then compare to:

when a baker refuses to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding, it is not correct to say he is refusing to serve gays. He is refusing to serve/facilitate/participate in a same-sex wedding.

By which you are demonstrating that you think anti-miscegenation laws should be upheld under the Constitution under a doctrine of separate but equal? I didn’t think so – there is no state actor involved in your construct. You are comparing conduct of a private citizen to a private citizen, here, the baker to the baker.

However, your message is confused by your example. The antipathy to miscegenation is surely a relic, now, and YJ thinks the antipathy to SSM will become a relic, soon. The antipathy to miscegenation stemmed from the belief held by many whites that blacks were an inferior race. The antipathy to SSM will be seen by most as stemming from the belief that homosexuality is a particular form of sin, abhorrent to society. Thus the example would be seen by YJ, not unfairly, to support his premise that SSM is this generation’s miscegendation.

The day will never come when approval of homosexuality and ssm reaches the level of consensus against race discrimination. It will never come close. People who say it will are demonstrating nothing but their own ignorance of society.

I don’t see how my message is confused. My message is that it is incorrect to characterize a refusal to cater a same sex wedding as refusing to serve gays. And my example was a direct response to the analogy raised by yello. Had I ignored it in favor of another example, I probably would have (fairly) been accused of evading the point.

The antipathy to miscegenation is surely a relic, now, and YJ thinks the antipathy to SSM will become a relic, soon.

I doubt that is an accurate characterization of his thoughts because if it was he would just sit back and let it happen. But he isn’t content to just let it happen. He wants to impose his view by the force of law. That is the sign of someone who wants it to be a relic, but thinks it isn’t going to happen soon as long as people are free to act on their own judgments.

As an aside, I imagine that while it is surely true that antipathy towards miscegenation as a matter of public law is a relic, antipathy towards it as a personal matter is not nearly the relic you suggest. More than 96% of all marriages in the US remain intra-racial, while less than 4% are inter-racial. That is not a sign that negative attitudes towards inter-racial marriage is a “relic”.

Thus the example would be seen by YJ, not unfairly, to support his premise that SSM is this generation’s miscegendation.

There are plenty of reasons why such a general premise would be wrong. But within the narrow confines of the case we have been discussing, ie a baker refusing to cater a particular wedding because of opposition to it, the two are analogous, which is why I accepted and addressed it. A business owner choosing not to service a particular event because he is morally opposed to it is, in principle, the same regardless of the content of the moral judgment in question. It doesn’t matter whether the judgment is opposition to servicing an inter-racial marriage, a homosexual “marriage”, or a marriage between two neo-nazis.

Yello raises the specter of race for the simple reason that he thinks the existence of laws prohibiting a baker from refusing to service an inter-racial wedding establish a principle that can and should be applied more generally to a force a baker who doesn’t want to service a gay wedding to do so. As I mentioned earlier, I reject this not because the two are not comparable, but because far from establishing a principle to be applied more generally, the prohibition of private racial discrimination is an exception to the established principle of freedom of action that is fundamental to our nation, and would allow a Jewish baker to refuse to cater a neo-nazi wedding should such a situation arise, an outcome that applying yello’s principle would definitely not allow.

I know that assuming the definition of marriage already includes the notion of SSM

Yes. That is my assumption. I’ve never denied it. A marriage is a marriage. A same-sex marriage is not a distinct and separate type of marriage where they are legal. You do not get a same-sex marriage license or a straight marriage license. You get a marriage license. That is why civil unions were never a satisfactory answer except as a stop-gap measure.

And since you, yello, are simply assuming a new definition of marriage that you can neither articulate nor defend, you aren’t actually making an argument at all. You are assuming your preferred result, begging the question, proffering a tautology, engaging in ipse dixit, whichever you prefer.

Exactly. You are assuming the conclusion in your premises. Your premises are wrong.

You do not get a same-sex marriage license or a straight marriage license. You get a marriage license.

Not for a same sex “marriage” in a state that doesn’t legally recognize such “marriages” you don’t. Which is precisely the point. Your premise is false, hence your argument should be dismissed as the sophistry that it is.

Potential Male Customer: I’d like to order a wedding cake, can you show me some samples?

Baker: Sure, will your fiance be here to sample them as well.

Potential Customer: Not today, my partner is working and I thought I’d see what’s available first.

Baker: Hmmmm, what do you mean by partner?

Potential Customer: I’m marrying my boyfriend after being together for 5 years.

Baker: I’m sorry, we don’t cater gay weddings. Our services are unavailable to you. Try the bakery down the street, on the left, they’re gay!

Sorry Scott, I don’t really see the difference between refusing services, such as catering, and refusing to serve. I don’t think it’s comparable to some of the segregation laws in the country pre-Civil Rights Act, but it’s still refusing to serve. I give them a pass but it doesn’t mean I think it’s right, or smart!

Anecdotally, my wife has a name which is uni-sex and that has caused some confusion before. Many years ago I ordered an ice cream cake for our joint birthday from an ice cream shop in a predominantly gay neighborhood. The clerk got much more attentive when I gave him the names to inscribe on it.

In Mississippi, my wife had made reservations at a bed and breakfast where the proprietor called the day before and obliquely at first, and then directly asked if we were a same sex couple. She did not rent to unmarried couples and recently expanded her policy to same sex marriages as that became more common. She was the only B&B operator in that very small town and it was too late to make changes to our travel itinerary. Out of cowardice perhaps, I never confronted her on that policy.

So to say you think it is wrong or a mistake to mix morality with business is not really true

We don’t donate out of some sense of moral duty except for our personal donations. Business donations are both a tax write off and good for business. We don’t particularly care what the charity is that our customers are sponsoring. We’re doing it as goodwill with our customers, not the charity. So you’re wrong again.

Sorry. I’m new to this whole “words mean whatever you want them to and yet we can somehow still communicate” thing.

Gay people want to get married? Fine! Let ’em! I don’t care. But, semantically, it frickin’ requires the “same-sex” modifier and “marriage equality” cannot be substituted for “same sex” marriage grammatically. Because marriage is a union between a man and a woman historically, and variations, such as polygamous marriage, are almost always modified (and always, if correctly expressed). A marriage between one man and seven wives is not a “marriage”, it is a “polygamous” marriage.

@novahockey: “ha. i was hit once by a guy and had no idea. none whatsoever until he called a few days later.”

I was hit on in college, and it wasn’t subtle at all. Which in a way was kind of nice: I was also hit on by some cute chicks, and had no fucking idea. The gay guys were a lot clearer, but maybe a little over-enthusiastic. Had a friend who was a nice kid but not super bright who remained upset, for months, over a gay guy’s attempt to seduce him. And I also got the “try to talk the straight guy into sex” a few times. “Just lay back and I’ll blow you, what could it hurt?”

Which just goes to show that the typical male lack of subtlety in seduction knows no sexual preference.

Which strangely brings to mind the classic Seinfeld standup bit from the pilot. Something like this: women are so subtle, no one knows what they want. They don’t know what they want. Men know exactly what they want. What they want is women. They have no idea how to get women, but they know they want them. Our best ideas so far are honking car horns and catcalls and wolf whistles from construction sites.

I had a gay roommate for three years in college. He broke up with his girlfriend and came out of the closet six months after we had started rooming together. Neither he nor any of his friends nor any of the other couple of gay roommates we had ever hit on me in the least. Or if they did, it was either too subtle or I was too oblivious to notice.

Come to think of it, I was both a boy scout and an altar boy and never had a scout leader or priest try to molest me. This realization is pretty damaging to my self-esteem.

He will, Troll. I would put heavy money on him going for governor of Texas at some point in the not too distant future. He can make a credible run for president this time, not winning the nomination but gathering a following (aka Huckabee or Santorum). Expect him to challenge the sitting governor in 2018.

More than 96% of all marriages in the US remain intra-racial, while less than 4% are inter-racial. That is not a sign that negative attitudes towards inter-racial marriage is a “relic”.

Doesn’t that conflate a couple of different matters? Antipathy towards inter-racial marriage vs. entering into inter-racial relationships. For cultural reasons, most folks tend to form relationships within their own ethnic groups. My marriage probably blurs those boundaries as my wife’s parents is the product of an American father and a Costa Rican mother (whose own parentage had a fair amount of European stock). My kids are pretty much entirely white American, both culturally and by appearance.

In any event, this is one case where the analogy between SSM and inter racial relationships breaks down entirely. It’s fair to say that one does not have to have same sex attraction to be supportive of same sex relationships.

Not necessarily. I’m not sure how one would go about measuring antipathy towards inter-racial marriage, but one possible measure could be the willingness of people themselves to enter into one.

It is of course possible that one could reject it personally but not care what other people do, and of course having entered an intra-racial marriage is not necessarily indicative that one would not consider an inter-racial marriage, so in that sense it is true that the stats I presented are not great evidence.

Protecting religious liberty and the rights of conscience does not infringe on anyone’s sexual freedoms. Those who believe that marriage is a male–female relationship and want to lead their lives accordingly deny no one equal protection of the law. While Americans are free to live as they choose, no one should demand that government coerce others into celebrating their relationships. All Americans should remain free to believe and act in the public square based on their belief that marriage is the union of a man and woman without fear of government penalty.

What I found interesting is that Ryan makes the claim that legalizing SSM forces those opposed to it to celebrate it. A bit over the top, no?

lms has not answerd the two questions I posed, and I assume she is otherwise occupied. But there is another, related point that should be made. I’ll use this statement to illustrate, although any number of others could as well:

As a consumer though, I do refuse to purchase goods and services from very outspoken business entities that show a lack of tolerance for other views. Why is it so difficult for you to accept that our business personna is different than our personal one?

As I have indicated, I don’t buy for a minute the claim that anyone leaves his or her personal ethic at home when they put on their “business” hats. At a deeper level, though, there is a false dichotomy between the “business” person and the “consumer” in all these scenarios. When consumer A goes into business B to buy a cake, it is a commercial transaction on both sides. To say B is doing business while A is operating in “private” is to simply untrue.

The gay plaintiffs in the wedding cake and photography cases are bringing their personal beliefs into the commercial marketplace just as clearly as the shop owners are. It is the consumers who are imposing their personal beliefs, by force of law, on the business owners in a commercial setting. Why isn’t A required to keep his personal beliefs at home?

It was the statement no one should demand that government coerce others into celebrating their relationships. As the overall article was a case against legal recognition of same sex marriages, it seems that the author was conflating recognition of such marriages with celebration of them. That is distinct from the issue of whether or one should be required to provide services for them.

The discussion here is intriguing in that attitudes here regarding legal recognition of SSM are fairly hardened. I’ve often noticed something akin to this in scientific controversies. There are various camps as well as the persuadables. Although a controversy may be considered settled science, it is rare for anything approaching a unanimous view. What tends to happen is that there is a rump faction of those who hold a contrary view and that won’t change. They eventually leave research, retire, move into areas that have funding, etc.

Take cold fusion, which has largely been discredited following the failure to reproduce the results of Pons and Fleischman. There are still those who feel there is something to it and they continue to perform experiments. The International Conference on Cold Fusion is on its 18th iteration. There was even a keynote speaker from my institution (Naval Research Lab).

Getting back to SSM, I don’t think there are many above the age of 40 who are still persuadable. For the younger cohort, either they actively or passively favor it. Most recent polling has SSM approval in the 18 – 39 group at 72%. Were I to hazard a guess, opposition to SSM will gradually drop to a level of 15% – 20%. A Gallup poll showed approval of interracial marriage rose from 4% in 1958 to 87% in 2013. SSM is probably on a similar track.

I’m not sure how one would go about measuring antipathy towards inter-racial marriage, but one possible measure could be the willingness of people themselves to enter into one.

I’d put that as necessary, but not sufficient. I live fairly close to T. C. Williams High School (of Remember the Titans fame). I often see groups of teenagers walking through the neighborhood. They tend to be homogenous in their racial composition with one or two outliers. Say, a group of half a dozen teenagers, five of whom are black and one of whom is white. There are challenges forming strong relationships with somebody from a different ethnicity. It takes a certain flexibility in doing so.

“A private (non-)act of personal conscience cannot sensibly be construed to be an effort to create a social stigma. It is entirely different from a desire and attempt to actively convince others to shun someone for their actions or beliefs.”

Nope. If lmsinca’s refusal to patronize an establishment that doesn’t serve gays or cater same sex weddings is about trying to create a social stigma, then so is the initial refusal to provide the service in the first place.

Nope. If lmsinca’s refusal to patronize an establishment that doesn’t serve gays or cater same sex weddings is about trying to create a social stigma, then so is the initial refusal to provide the service in the first place.

You are not properly characterizing lms’s position. In her very first post on the issue she said:

If they are that particular about their customers I say give them a pass, but make sure everyone you know knows the kind of business they’re running and understands the basis for their refusal.

Clearly, by “making sure everyone knows”, she is doing more than just refusing to patronize the business. She wants to make a public issue of it in order to socially stigmatize the business owner. The baker himself has done no such similar thing(as far as I know). His refusal to cater the wedding was a private matter between he and the couple, and he took no steps (as far as I know) to socially stigmatize SSM.

As I have indicated, I don’t buy for a minute the claim that anyone leaves his or her personal ethic at home when they put on their “business” hats. At a deeper level, though, there is a false dichotomy between the “business” person and the “consumer” in all these scenarios. When consumer A goes into business B to buy a cake, it is a commercial transaction on both sides. To say B is doing business while A is operating in “private” is to simply untrue.

Edited to add the above comment from qb

Does anyone else here actually own a business? Obviously I can’t think of a single transaction in which money changes hands that couldn’t be called a business transaction. But the difference between being a consumer and an owner is quite clear to me.

We have thousands of customers across the country and internationally as well. We would never do anything to harm our relationship with them. The only thing that ever interferes with the way we conduct our business is if they are unable or unwilling to pay for our products. Even then, we treat them with respect and set up a payment plan or offer to take product back to lessen their burden.

The only thing that would harm our relationship with our vendors, of which we have hundreds, is if they try to undercut or harm our business in some way. That has happened to us a few times and even then we keep it primarily to ourselves and make an effort to maintain a working relationship if possible. I could give you examples if that’s really what you want.

We have a business ethic, if you will, which encompasses bringing in quality products at an affordable price and being honest in all of our business dealings. That’s about as moral as we get. We don’t lie or try to cheat anyone. And we pay our bills.

My personal moral principles regarding religion, abortion, SSM, politics, health care, immigration, etc never come into play in our dealings with customers………………….they’re our bread and butter so why would I take any sort of chance to alienate them. And frankly, I could care less about their opinion on the same subjects. I don’t see what is so difficult to understand about that.

As the consumer in a “business transaction”, I feel much more free to reject businesses and their practices for numerous reasons based on any number of what I might consider appalling business practices. It’s not that difficult to understand I don’t think.

It was the statement no one should demand that government coerce others into celebrating their relationships. As the overall article was a case against legal recognition of same sex marriages, it seems that the author was conflating recognition of such marriages with celebration of them. That is distinct from the issue of whether or one should be required to provide services for them.

That’s pretty poor reading, given that he at length discussed instances of government coercision. I find it interesting that you invoked such an obvious straw man.

SSM is probably on a similar track.

That is laughable. Btw it ignores your own earlier description of the hardened extremes versus persuadables. All you have seen in the past several years on SSM is the breaking of persuables, i.e., soft-headed people who don’t actually know what they think or why, so when a few cool people go the other way, or they get bullied and called names, they flip flop. You will never, ever see support for SSM at 87% or anything close.

I do, with about 100 partners. I am embroiled in a huge controversy about such issues right now. My management decided to put our name and a large amount of (our) money behind something I find deeply offensive and abhorrent, and we have had heated arguments over it. Their response is that (1) it is the right thing to do, and (2) it is good for business. I deny both but in addition say, I don’t care whether it is good for business (i.e., making money); I don’t violate my conscience for money and would no sooner be associated with this evil than with selling heroin in the street.

Their response to this is: you shouldn’t worry about it, because you don’t have to agree with everything “we” do, and the outside world–at whom this is targeted for marketing purposes–won’t stigmatize you personally for it. So at the same time they want to claim personal moral credit for this initiative they tell me that it has nothing to do with me (us) personally. This is typical of the complete moral and logical chaos of progressive ideology imo. They want to run our joint business according to their personal morality while explaining to me that those of us that disagree are not implicated.

My personal moral principles regarding religion, abortion, SSM, politics, health care, immigration, etc never come into play in our dealings with customers………………….they’re our bread and butter so why would I take any sort of chance to alienate them.
I would venture to say that it is because you can’t think of a time when you were confronted with a choice of violating your conscience. With the product you sell, it is harder to imagine such scenarios.

And frankly, I could care less about their opinion on the same subjects. I don’t see what is so difficult to understand about that.

Again, no one has suggested that taking issue with someone’s opinions is the issue. It is providing services for a particular kind of event. I begin to think that those on your side of this really have a mental block about what the issue is.

As the consumer in a “business transaction”, I feel much more free to reject businesses and their practices for numerous reasons based any number of what I might consider appalling business practices. It’s not that difficult to understand I don’t think.
Based on your preceding argument, this apparently is because as a business person you don’t want to jeopardize your business, where as a consumer you feel you have other choices. Right? This, however, in no way speaks to the issue of whether a business person who is faced with a moral dilemma can justifiably choose conscience over money or can justifiably be punished by law for doing so.

I believe the point that lms and jnc are in agreement on is that both the baker in refusing to sell and the buyers boycotting based on that decision are attempting to use commerce to stigmatize a group. But I could be wrong.

I believe the point that lms and jnc are in agreement on is that both the baker in refusing to sell and the buyers boycotting based on that decision are attempting to use commerce to stigmatize a group.

If so, they are both wrong. The baker is not doing anything at all to socially stigmatize gays or gay weddings. The only stigmatizing going on is the attempt to stigmatize the baker.

qb, while your dilemma with your partners sounds difficult it really has nothing to do with me. I simply tried to answer your questions as honestly as I could. As I said before, the choice of the baker and photographer, are theirs to make, as are mine as a consumer of baked goods and photos.

We have supported by way of donations many events that I probably wouldn’t otherwise support but done it as a way to support our customers, that’s what we do. I don’t lose any sleep over it.

Admittedly though, we’re not in a business where much moral dilemma presents itself. Just lucky I guess.

or can justifiably be punished by law for doing so.

I’ve already clearly stated several times that I don’t believe they should be punished by law, so either you don’t believe me, or aren’t really that interested in what I’ve said.

That’s pretty poor reading, given that he at length discussed instances of government coercision. I find it interesting that you invoked such an obvious straw man.

If recognition of SSM is not coercion, then it is he who has brought up the straw man of coercion, not I.

SSM is probably on a similar track.

That is laughable. Btw it ignores your own earlier description of the hardened extremes versus persuadables. All you have seen in the past several years on SSM is the breaking of persuables, i.e., soft-headed people who don’t actually know what they think or why, so when a few cool people go the other way, or they get bullied and called names, they flip flop. You will never, ever see support for SSM at 87% or anything close.

Check those numbers again. 72% of under 40s support it. That already is something close. Support of SSM has tracked faster than support of interracial marriage. That you insult those who disagrees with you on this topic is irrelevant. You are simply not capable of approaching such matters analytically.

Check those numbers again. 72% of under 40s support it. That already is something close. Support of SSM has tracked faster than support of interracial marriage. That you insult those who disagrees with you on this topic is irrelevant. You are simply not capable of approaching such matters analytically.

Scott, it’s called a boycott and people do it all the time when they discover a business practice they disapprove of. It’s something I’ve been doing for years, ever since my college days. One of the reasons we stay away from controversy as a business is so we don’t become embroiled in these kinds of situations.

Customers have a funny way of finding these things out whether they try to keep it semi-private or not.

Life isn’t always fair.

BTW, when I referred to refusal to serve it wasn’t in the sense you and qb are arguing with me over it was in the sense of refusing to offer a service. I understand the distinction and wasn’t intentionally conflating it with civil rights language. If a business takes that stand based on moral disapproval they take their chances but afaic they’re free to refuse if that’s what they want to do.

Scott, it’s called a boycott and people do it all the time when they discover a business practice they disapprove of.

I know. Another way of putting it is that people do it when they are intolerant of other people’s beliefs/choices. Which strangely enough, is exactly what I started with in this thread. You are more intolerant of the baker than he is of gay weddings. After all, he’s not actively trying to get everyone else to refuse to cater gay weddings.

I believe the point that lms and jnc are in agreement on is that both the baker in refusing to sell and the buyers boycotting based on that decision are attempting to use commerce to stigmatize a group. But I could be wrong.

That would be a bad point to try to make, since it clearly isn’t true. The baker is simply trying to refrain from violating his own conscience. The boycotters are trying to stigmatize or coerce or whatever it is they are trying to do. That is different from someone who just avoids a merchant out of disapproval or distaste.

I’m not sure how one would go about measuring antipathy towards inter-racial marriage, but one possible measure could be the willingness of people themselves to enter into one.

This is a poor way to measure antipathy; I’ve never been attracted enough to a man of a different race to marry one, but I have no objection to other women doing so. Similarly, I have never been attracted enough to a woman, of whatever race, to marry her. . . but I don’t care if others marry people of the same sex.

You’re going to have to come up with a better way, and the baker refusing to cater a wedding because it involves two innies or two outies rather than one of each is pretty clear.

I believe the point that lms and jnc are in agreement on is that both the baker in refusing to sell and the buyers boycotting based on that decision are attempting to use commerce to stigmatize a group. But I could be wrong.”

Correct. In both cases they are making the case that their moral disapproval is more important than making money. And in both cases it’s meant to send a larger message by example. The continuum between just opting out personally to active stigmatization is a broad one, but in both cases it’s about sending a message.

Same thing for those companies that refuse to open on Sunday or grocery stores that don’t carry alcohol. They are forgoing profit in the name of a larger issue.

Refusing service and boycotting are two sides of the same coin. As long as the state isn’t involved, I’m fine with it.

Well, then, I guess you are as intolerant of those who hold different moral codes as lms is.

In both cases they are making the case that their moral disapproval is more important than making money.

Nope. lms’ boycott doesn’t cost her any money at all. She is making the point that her moral disapproval is more important than tolerance for beliefs she doesn’t agree with.

The continuum between just opting out personally to active stigmatization is a broad one, but in both cases it’s about sending a message.

Well I am glad you finally acknowledge a distinction between opting out and active stigmatization. The baker is engaging in the former, while lms (and apparently you) would engage in the latter. Which was my point from the very beginning…lms, in desiring a boycott, is showing more intolerance than the baker.

Having said that, I think you are absolutely wrong that they are both about “sending a message”. Consider: A baker has a personal moral objection to same-sex marriages. Therefore he doesn’t want to participate in or facilitate such a “marriage” in any way. But he understands that others have no moral objections to such a “marriage”, and he has no interest in evangelizing to them or trying to convince them otherwise. He simply wants to act on his own moral judgment as a personal matter. So, when a gay couple comes and asks him to cater their wedding, he politely declines, explaining that he has personal moral objections to SSM, and so will not cater one.

According to you, the baker is trying to “send a message” equivalent to the boycott that you and lms will subsequently organize against his business. I think it quite plainly isn’t equal in any way whatsoever. The baker isn’t trying to stop gays from getting married, or trying to financially injure them for daring to disagree with his morals, as you and lms are doing. But, if you really think it is equivalent, what action should the baker take if he both wants to be true to his moral beliefs, but has no interest in “sending a message” to anyone?

So you too think that business owners should be socially stigmatized for acting on personal moral/religious judgments that you disagree with in the course of doing business?”

Sure. If someone refused to serve me because I’m a libertarian, I’ll make sure everyone knows he’s an asshole. I’m still not going to sue him or try to put him in jail, because he has a right to be an asshole in his own business establishment, just like I have a right to point that out to everyone.

As a broader point, when one rules out government coercion as a mechanism for society (even though I usually eschew that term as I think it’s used too broadly) to register disapproval, individual actions like boycotts take on an even more important role. They aren’t illegitimate as long as violence and force aren’t used.

I.e. picketers don’t have a right to block others from patronizing a location.

As a broader point, when one rules out government coercion as a mechanism for society (even though I usually eschew that term as I think it’s used too broadly) to register disapproval, individual actions like boycotts take on an even more important role.

But in a tolerant society, such boycotts would prove to be fairly rare. And I am a firm believer in real tolerance, not the fake tolerance that is the hallmark of the left.

BTW, boycotts are almost never expressions of “societal” disapproval. They are pretty much almost always expressions of the disapproval small but politically hyper-active interest group.

Again, this is a false characterization. It is telling you guys can’t make your point without misrepresenting what the baker is doing. He did not say he wouldn’t bake for a gay person. He said he wouldn’t bake a wedding cake for a gay wedding. Has he refused to bake a birthday cake for a gay person? Has he refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay person marrying someone of the opposite sex? If so, then perhaps your characterization has merit. If not, then it doesn’t.

Ok, so he’s registering disapproval of gay weddings. It’s still an act meant to convey disapproval.

“In both cases they are making the case that their moral disapproval is more important than making money.

Nope. lms’ boycott doesn’t cost her any money at all. She is making the point that her moral disapproval is more important than tolerance for beliefs she doesn’t agree with.”

Bad phrasing on my part. It’s not causing lms money directly, but she is potentially losing out on a needed or better quality service that she could otherwise receive if she was just making her shopping decisions based solely on price and quality. Or all those people who miss out on Chik-Fil-A sandwiches and Domino’s pizza while trying to make a political point.

The broader point remains that if the baker has the right not to bake for an event that he finds morally objectionable, then it’s equivalent for others to choose not patronize him because they find that choice itself and the value system underlying it morally objectionable.

The broader point remains that if the baker has the right not to bake for an event that he finds morally objectionable, then it’s equivalent for others to choose not patronize him because they find that choice itself and the value system underlying it morally objectionable.

I totally agree. What it is not equivalent to, however, is organizing a boycott, or even just trying to convince everyone you know not to patronize the place. There is a difference between exercising your own personal morality and evangelizing.

Sure. If someone refused to serve me because I’m a [woman/liberal/divorcée], I’ll make sure everyone knows he’s an asshole. I’m still not going to sue him or try to put him in jail, because he has a right to be an asshole in his own business establishment, just like I have a right to point that out to everyone.

and

I disagree. “I’ll bake for everyone else, but not you” is pretty stigmatizing.

“But, if you really think it is equivalent, what action should the baker take if he both wants to be true to his moral beliefs, but has no interest in “sending a message” to anyone?”

Probably refer them to another baker with the execuse that he’s overbooked.

“According to you, the baker is trying to “send a message” equivalent to the boycott that you and lms will subsequently organize against his business”

Also, I don’t think either of us said that we would be actively organizing a boycott, we just wouldn’t patronize the establishment.

Having said that, I think organizing boycotts is a free speech issue (unless it becomes extortion and I’ll cede that sometimes the line is a fine one. I usually distinguish between the two based on whether or not the demands are public and whether or not they lead to personal financial gain of the person making them) and therefor I defend it.

Probably refer them to another baker with the execuse that he’s overbooked.

So he should lie?

Also, I don’t think either of us said that we would be actively organizing a boycott, we just wouldn’t patronize the establishment.

lms said she would go beyond simply not patronizing it and publicize the fact to everyone she knows, with the clear implication that she would encourage them to join her. And when I asked you specifically if you were agreeing with this, you said “Sure.”

Having said that, I think organizing boycotts is a free speech issue…

To be clear, I am not challenging the right to boycott. I am simply pointing out the intolerance to disagreement that is at the root of any boycott. Which is why I generally oppose them. I am a very tolerant guy. Pretty much the only thing I am extremely intolerant of is the desire to use force against others. In fact the only personal boycott I have ever engaged in and actively tried to get others to join me in was against the New York Times. And that was only close relatives.

Scott, you’re exaggerating the entire boycott example. Suppose I have a gay daughter who is marrying her partner and they go to a bakery that was recommended by a friend whose daughter recently married. Much to their shock and horror, the shop refuses to bake their cake because he disapproves of SSM. They both come home in tears and tell me what happened. Do you think I’m just going to say to them oh well, they’re entitled to their opinion, and so we’ll just merrily go on our way and find another bakery, hoping it doesn’t happen again?

Do you seriously expect me to go back there when my son and his fiance decide to marry, or not warn all of the girls’ friends not to go there? I might even call the bakery myself and let them know what my opinion is of their business and that none or our friends or family will give them our business. I will definitely make sure everyone we know who is contemplating a wedding cake or any other cake will know about it.

What I won’t do is sue them, announce it to the country at large, or stand in front of their shop with a picket sign………………my days of doing that are over unless we engage in another all out war.

I don’t shop at Hobby Lobby, Walmart, Whole Foods or other businesses for similar reasons. It’s a “one woman boycott”……………………..yikes.

I don’t think it’s particularly fair of you to start a “who’s the most intolerant” person at ATiM and name me as the lucky recipient of that award (along with jnc apparently now). IMO, the intolerance began with the baker based on my moral acceptance of SSM. Different people place different moral value on issues. I’m not going to pull a CAO and hope they die some sort of painful death or anything.

Do you think I’m just going to say to them oh well, they’re entitled to their opinion, and so we’ll just merrily go on our way and find another bakery, hoping it doesn’t happen again?

Why not? They are entitled to their opinion, and you really don’t have much choice but to find another bakery, hoping it doesn’t happen again. Surely it can’t come as a shock to gay people that a lot of people object to SSM.

Do you seriously expect me to go back there when my son and his fiance decide to marry, or not warn all of the girls’ friends not to go there?

As I thought I made clear, your personal refusal to patronize the business is perfectly reasonable to me. But as even jnc pointed out, there is a pretty broad spectrum of objection between personal refusal to engage in business with the guy and organizing a full-on boycott. I just think that the more you actively attempt to enlist others in your protest, the more intolerant of the opposing view you are proving yourself to be.

I have a very, very high threshold of tolerance for the whacky, even offensive, views of other people. As long as they are not coercing others, I say live and let live. I realize mine is not a very common view. In fact, in light of jnc’s agreement with you today, I’ve learned it is even more uncommon than I had thought.

What I won’t do is sue them, announce it to the country at large, or stand in front of their shop with a picket sign…

That is good to hear.

I don’t think it’s particularly fair of you to start a “who’s the most intolerant” person at ATiM and name me as the lucky recipient of that award

I am not trying to identify the most intolerant person at ATIM and if I were I can assure you that you wouldn’t even place a close second. No award for you this time.

“I don’t think it’s particularly fair of you to start a “who’s the most intolerant” person at ATiM and name me as the lucky recipient of that award (along with jnc apparently now).”

I’ll stick up for Scott here. I don’t think he personally dislikes any of us and I don’t take it as an attack on me. I think he’s using this as a framing device in his argument to make a point about what he views as a hypocritical position.

There is a segment of the homosexual normalization movement that argues that the conduct is only immoral for straights, since it is against their nature. (Can hardly type that without laughing.) This would make the marriage described above immoral, for the lesbian wife but not the husband. (Restraining laughter again.)

No, just because you call yourself Napoleon doesn’t make you Napoleon.

But a rose is a rose, by any name. [corollary].

Back in 1969, when I had left the prosecutor’s gig, I was hired to change Ruth O’Doul’s name to Ruth Malouf.
Ruth was the legal secretary to a criminal defense lawyer I knew who asked me to do him a favor. Seems she had had a baby out of wedlock with an Arab grad student named Malouf and although he left Austin never to return she named the baby “Malouf” on the BC. I tried to convince her to change the baby’s name to O’Doul, but there was no reasoning with her.

“There is a difference between exercising your own personal morality and evangelizing.”

And because the baker interacts with numerous members of the public in a business daily, choosing not to service a subset of it or even a particularl activity is a public act. By making that stand known, he is evangelizing.

And because the baker interacts with numerous members of the public in a business daily, choosing not to service a subset of it or even a particularly activity is a public act.

It’s my experience that businesses run by evangelical Christians tend to have lots of symbols in their shops to signal their faith to co-believers like fish symbols or Bible verses at the register. This is not necessarily a problem and lots of other groups do the same with rainbow stickers or even sports logos. These situations where gay customers are refused are not private acts of conscious, they are public statements of faith.

These situations where gay customers are refused are not private acts of conscious, they are public statements of faith.

This is nothing but a bald assertion. Why should anyone believe it to be true? What characteristic distinguishes a private act of conscience from a public statement of faith? The mere presence of another person?

Frankly the (seemingly common, here at ATiM) notion that acting in the context of a business automatically makes the act a “public” one is somewhat baffling. The fact that I may purchase a particular good doesn’t make the purchase a “public” statement. The public at large doesn’t know, and doesn’t have a right to know, about most of the things I purchase. So if the transaction is not a “public” act from my POV as a buyer, how does the exact same transaction suddenly become a “public” issue from the POV of the seller? If I walk into a store and demand as a member of the public to see who the store has sold to and what they have sold, the owner will tell me to fuck off, and rightfully so. I have no right as a member of the public to know who they guy is doing business with, except possibly in very narrow circumstances.

So what is it that makes an act in the context of business a “public” act, apart from simply a desire for it to be so in order to justify trying to generate “public” disapproval of it?

History is filled with gay people getting married to members of the opposite sex.

There is a word for this, and I believe it’s “beard”. And just because it has been done historically doesn’t mean that it’s right. I can give you a list of historical practices which those of us living in the 21st century now consider to be wrong.

There’s a lot of that. Larry Smith, the husband of Piper Kernan, the author of Orange Is The New Black humblebrags that he was always ending up in relationships with lesbians.

Dan Savage the advice columnist is often tarred as anti-bi because he has attacked gay men who try to pass as bisexual because real bisexual men then get accused of lying. Now he crusades that bisexuals need to be more “out” for awareness. He points out that bisexuals in opposite sex relationships rather understandably are heteronormatively assumed to be straight.

Sexuality, particularly among women, can be very fluid. Men wouldn’t find porn-lesbians (as opposed to real lesbians) so hawt if it weren’t so.

Then why are you trying oh-so-patiently-and-kindly to explain that boycotts are Wrong And Intolerant?

I never said they are “wrong”. I said they are a demonstration of intolerance. And they are. But that does not imply that I think people have no right to boycott. I think people have a right to be intolerant of pretty much anything, including both of gays and of those who oppose SSM.

I’ll stick up for Scott here. I don’t think he personally dislikes any of us and I don’t take it as an attack on me.

I didn’t say I think he personally dislikes us, I just don’t think it’s productive here to name someone as being intolerant. If he wants to suggest that my position is hypocritical, that would be fine. I don’t like labels such as intolerant, bigot, stupid and what have you. They raise defenses and then the discussion devolves into personal attacks.

“Probably refer them to another baker with the execuse that he’s overbooked.

So he should lie?”

Sure, if as you put it “if he both wants to be true to his moral beliefs, but has no interest in “sending a message” to anyone?””

If he answers I’m not doing this job because I disapprove of gay weddings, he’s sending a message.

I think you are trying to have it both ways for the baker where he reserves the right to refuse service due to his moral objections but then cries that he’s the victim when those who object to his basis of refusing service cease patronizing him.

He has a right to make a decision about who to serve based on his moral beliefs but not a right to be free from the consequences of that decision.

In general, I’m fine with the premise of what goes around comes around as a form of justice.

And let’s take the old style boycott out of the argument. How about instead of organizing a boycott, lmsinca and myself simply post on Yelp that this guy doesn’t cater gay weddings and let fellow Yelp users make their own decisions about patronizing him while incorporating that fact?

I think you are trying to have it both ways for the baker where he reserves the right to refuse service due to his moral objections but then cries that he’s the victim when those who object to his basis of refusing service cease patronizing him.

Nope. I have repeatedly said (how many times must I repeat it?) that choosing not to do business with him is perfectly fine, and the functional equivalent of what he is doing with regard to gay weddings. What is not the functional equivalent, and what demonstrates greater intolerance, is an attempt to socially stigmatize the baker for his beliefs by enlisting others in your objection.

How about instead of organizing a boycott, lmsinca and myself simply post on Yelp that this guy doesn’t cater gay weddings and let fellow Yelp users make their own decisions about patronizing him while incorporating that fact?

If you did so out of the hope and expectation that it would ultimately result in either financial damage to his business or a change in his behavior more in line with your personal morality, then I still think you are proving yourself to be even more intolerant of beliefs you disagree with than is the baker himself, who hasn’t done anything to enlist other people in the hopes that the gay couple will be financially damaged or alter their behavior to be more in line with his own personal morality.

I think it is you who is trying to have it both ways. You want to be seen as tolerant of those who disagree with you about certain things, but you don’t in fact want to tolerate them. If you weren’t so averse to being seen as intolerant, you’d just acknowledge that, as I pointed out earlier, conformity on the moral question at issue is more important to you than is being tolerant of those who disagree with you on the issue. I’m sure there are other issues that, even though you might have differences with the owner, would not compel you to enlist others to either help damage his business or compel him to change his views. Or, in other words, disagreement about which you would be more tolerant. This just isn’t one of those issues.

Okay………………….I concede the point………………I always do. Does that really mean though that I am intolerant? I guess I feel about this the same way I do about making an outrageous statement that has consequences. You’re free to make the statement but don’t be surprised when a price is exacted. To me intolerance is more of a “I’m right and you’re always wrong and you’re not even entitled to your opinion” kind of thing!

Scott, at least I’m not the MOST intolerant ATiMer in your opinion……………I’ll take that.

The advertisement is public. That doesn’t make every transaction he then engages in a public transaction. Again if it did, then anyone could go into any store that advertises and justifiably demand to see the records of what was sold and to whom it was sold. I doubt you think such a demand would be justified.

I also doubt very much that it is the mere fact that the guy advertises himself as a baker of cakes but then refuses to actually bake a cake for someone that you object to. I imagine that there are all kinds of reasons a baker might have for refusing to bake a particular cake for a particular client that you wouldn’t object to at all. What you object to is this particular reason for turning down this particular business, not turning down the business in principle. I think any effort to establish some general principle for why this particular instance is intolerable, and hence justifies social stigmatization, is destined to fail. It is related only to your personal morality and threshold of tolerance.

These situations where gay customers are refused are not private acts of conscious, they are public statements of faith.

I’ll be the third to tee off on this, I guess, although this is really addressed to the entire discussion.

I’m fascinated by how people on the left manipulate notions of private, public, and “business” to suit their whims. Here we have a single hypothetical transaction between two people, one of whom progressives posit to be acting in a “business” mode and therefore somehow not entitled to follow his conscience, and the other of whom they posit is acting in his “private” mode as a mere “consumer,” so that he is free to follow his personal conscience and morality. More than that, the “private” consumer has the right to demand that the merchant submit his private conscience to that of the consumer, since somehow when the merchant walks into his shop where this transaction occurs he must leave his own ethics at home or in the parking lot, while the customer’s go with him everywhere.

Of course, none of this occurs in “private” in the sense that it is something done alone in one’s home, nor is it “private” for either party in the sense that it is not “business.” By its nature we are talking about a “public” act in the sense that it occurs [Edit:] in public outside the home, between two persons, and it is “business” or “commercial” on both sides. It is, however, private in the sense that it does not involve government, unless and until, that is, government intrudes to punish one of the parties for obeying his own rather than the other’s conscience. And this is done, as seen in the foregoing discussion in this thread, by twisting and manipulating notions of private versus public or “business” activity to postulate a transaction that is “public” on one side but “private” on the other.

Again, the progressive ideology seems to depend on this sort of logical chaos and manipulation.

We see the same phenomenon across many issues, btw. Hobby Lobby is another version: progressives generally want the employer to be treated as “public” and therefore subordinate and subject to the “private” choices of the employee, who may command the employer to pay or provide for those “private” choices. The logic is absolutely ridiculous.

“I think any effort to establish some general principle for why this particular instance is intolerable, and hence justifies social stigmatization, is destined to fail. It is related only to your personal morality and threshold of tolerance.”

Correct, which is why it’s not properly a subject for the government or the law. However, I’m perfectly justified in using my personal morality as a guide to whom I choose to patronize and I’m also perfectly justified in trying to convince others of the same. They either buy my arguments or they don’t.

There’s always the possibility that the general public will buy the baker’s arguments instead and he’ll be swamped with business, ala the failed attempt to boycott Chik-fil-A which morphed into Chik-fil-A Appreciation Day.

Wrong…………………I don’t believe that. I just want others to know about his secret, unadvertised policy so they don’t walk in unaware.

I should perhaps have applied my generalization to progressives who want the baker punished, whom I think are most progressives (e.g., yello).”

There’s actually a stated consensus from lmsinca, myself, Michi & Scott that this shouldn’t properly be a subject for government or for lawsuits.

The issue at hand (correct me if I’m wrong Scott) is whether or not trying to persuade someone else besides yourself not to patronize the baker because you disagree with his decision not to cater gay weddings is a difference in kind from the baker’s decision not to cater in the first place.

I believe that Scott has conceded already that if you personally withhold your business from the baker it’s equivalent to the baker withholding his business from you. The question is does the baker withholding his business also constitute proselytizing as well?

The question is does the baker withholding his business also constitute proselytizing as well?

Correct. I don’t see how it could even remotely be considered proselytizing. And even if one thinks it is, it is manifestly not of the same degree as someone who actively tries to socially stigmatize the baker by convincing others that the baker’s beliefs are intolerable.

There’s always the possibility that the general public will buy the baker’s arguments…

The baker isn’t making any arguments. Only you are trying to convince others to adopt your moral code. And therein lies the difference.

“I also doubt very much that it is the mere fact that the guy advertises himself as a baker of cakes but then refuses to actually bake a cake for someone that you object to. I imagine that there are all kinds of reasons a baker might have for refusing to bake a particular cake for a particular client that you wouldn’t object to at all. ”

Correct. He’s not doing it on a case by case basis where there’s just something about you in particular that he has issue with (too far to drive, conflict with another client, etc). He’s making a blanket determination that he won’t cater any gay wedding at all, even if he’d otherwise be idle that day. That’s when it becomes advocacy instead of an individual business decision.

So, “tolerance” equals not unleashing the power of the government against a perceived other, but mob justice is OK and “intolerance” equals a conscience objection to, for example, a gay wedding, and declining the business?

Incidentally, is it possible to decline catering a gay wedding without screaming scripture and railing about eternal damnation at the customer?

Sure. Say you are too busy. My general experience is that the people who do make a point of declining business based on moral disapproval also make a point of publicizing it, but your experience may be difference.

Also it’s not “mob justice” to decline to do business with someone.

If he can decline to do business with you, you & any other like minded people can decline to do business with him. It’s just reciprocity.

My general experience is that the people who do make a point of declining business based on moral disapproval also make a point of publicizing it

The only reason I know about the baker in question is because of the gay couple made it a point to publicize it.

More generally, I think it bad for society in general when the morally self-righteous get into a pissing contest about who has the right morality. That is why, although acknowledging their right to do it, I would disapprove of both an anti-SSM business owner trying to convince other business owners not to service gay weddings and a pro-SSM person trying to convince others not to patronize the anti-SSM business owner (unless he was himself trying to evangelize or lecture others over his beliefs.)

Live and let live is not a slogan I would use simply to convince others to be tolerant of the things I approve of. I actually believe it, even for things that I personally disapprove of. In that I am, it seems, a significant minority.

There’s actually a stated consensus from lmsinca, myself, Michi & Scott that this shouldn’t properly be a subject for government or for lawsuits.

Without casting any aspersions, lmsinca has been a bit of a moving target in my perception. Perhaps I missed an unequivocal statement that lawsuits and punishment are wrong. As for Michi, nope, not buying it for a second.

The issue at hand (correct me if I’m wrong Scott) is whether or not trying to persuade someone else besides yourself not to patronize the baker because you disagree with his decision not to cater gay weddings is a difference in kind from the baker’s decision not to cater in the first place.

Well, that is one issue. As to that issue, isn’t it self-evident to everyone that those are different things? I mean, it is tautological: is merely refraining different from persuading others to refrain? Obviousy so.

Actually I think such a statement could have been considerably stronger. It certainly indicates that she would not sue over such a thing, but does it indicate that someone who does bring such a suit ought to certainly lose? To be honest, I have taken it to mean that, but it isn’t totally clear that such an interpretation is justified.

I think the following statement is both reasonable and much stronger:

I think any such lawsuit should be laughed out of court as entirely frivolous, and perhaps costs awarded to the defendant for the trouble of having had to answer to it.

QB, you are wanting a lay person to comprehend “standing”? Even the HoR doesn’t truly understand “standing”.

No, I certainly am not. Perhaps you would prefer that I say with more precision that “the law should not provide a cause of action,” or “the law should not penalize the merchant,” or “the law should not prohibit the behavior as discrimination.” But what I said has nothing to do with arcana of standing or with the cliche that anyone can sue anyone for anything.

Lulu’s statement is as strong as it (reasonably) can be. Stop picking nits, please

I’m not sure what to make of that. Chivalrous? I was under the impression that careful debate was why everyone was here. I got used to the fact that we must be ever so restrained in discussion with the “gals,” else we give the offensive impression we think we are right about something. But I guess I will have to redouble my efforts to be sensitive.

I have also stated that I couldn’t care less whether baker A will cater a gay wedding or not, nor do I think the government should force him to (which I said a few months ago now). I do, however, think that baker A should be prepared to find out that not everyone agrees with him, and some (like me) won’t patronize him because of that.

Of course, as jnc pointed out, that may not actually mean a decline in business for him.

Baker A has taken his stand, and bully for him. His customers also get to take their stands.

Given that I’m such a raging homophobic bigot, whose presence is intolerable, that’s a little like someone’s criticizing Hitler for his table manners. From your perspective. Which makes your chastisment so meaningful to me.

Wow, a girl really loves being the center of attention……………………lol. Maybe next time you guys could do it while I’m here so I can enjoy it in real time.

A couple of you remind me of those girls who don’t know how to accept a compliment and just say thank-you.

It’s not often that I agree with anyone here and honestly the response wasn’t quite what I expected.

Here’s what I said for the record.

If they are that particular about their customers I say give them a pass, but make sure everyone you know knows the kind of business they’re running and understands the basis for their refusal. Who needs them?

My first comment wasn’t up two minutes when I went back and added this.

Edited to add that I think our country has become suit happy and it’s a pet peeve of mine.

I went on to say.

I care because I believe it’s prejudicial, which bothers me, but I don’t think it’s lawsuit worthy, as I indicated already.

Someone who cannot bake a cake for a gay wedding, when their business is baking cakes, looks ridiculous to me. I also think suing them over it is ridiculous.

Legally, everyone is entitled to a defense but are lawyers required to represent just because they’re asked………………………I hope not.

I’ve already clearly stated several times that I don’t believe they should be punished by law,

“I think I have been tolerant to the point that I don’t agree with legal action or government action against them”

If a business takes that stand based on moral disapproval they take their chances but afaic they’re free to refuse if that’s what they want to do.

I didn’t know this was a question before I left yesterday but apparently both qb and scott now think I wasn’t clear.

qb

See, that is what I mean. To say it is not lawsuit worthy is equivocal. It appears to me to mean that she thinks it not worth suing over, not that the law should not permit such lawsuits.

Scott

it isn’t totally clear that such an interpretation is justified.

I don’t think the law should allow such lawsuits. They’re frivolous and I consider them abuses of the legal system. I suppose it would follow that the person or persons bringing the suit should pay the court and lawyer’s fees. Isn’t that the typical result of losing a lawsuit? I assumed it was and didn’t think I needed to specify that.

I have two tenants from 2012 that owe me a lot of back rent, lawyer’s fees and court costs but I doubt we’ll ever see the money………………but that’s an entirely different issue.

Also, for the record, I don’t expect anyone here to treat me with more sensitivity than they can muster or speak for me. I’m just another ATiM commenter when I’m moved to comment at all. I try to treat others with respect, falling short on occasion, and I would hope for the same courtesy back, but that’s on y’all not me.

I’m trying to work out the moral calculus here since the group most likely to not want to bring a gay fetus to term are the people most opposed to abortion. I can’t picture Sarah Palin if Trig had been identified as a potential lesbian in utero defending her action one way or another.